Ottawa’s public health bureaucracy appears poised to revive the same behavioural influence tactics that defined the COVID era, this time under the softer branding of “experiential marketing.”

According to a recent tender notice published on the Government of Canada’s procurement website, Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) are seeking contractors to deliver “experiential marketing services” in support of future public health campaigns. The scope includes in-person and virtual events, digital outreach, creative development, stakeholder engagement, and detailed performance reporting.

In plain terms, it is a comprehensive communications and engagement strategy designed not merely to inform, but to measure, refine and influence public behaviour.

The stated campaign topics range from healthy living, substance use, food safety and infectious diseases. While those may appear uncontroversial, the initiative is simply a continuation of the nonconsensual behavioural science playbook deployed during COVID-19, when the federal government spent hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars on advertising, messaging and “nudge” strategies intended to engineer compliance with public health directives.

During a “Behavioural Science for Better Health” strategic roundtable, Tam refers to APPs that nudge people toward healthy behaviour & rewards them w badges. Ties this in with Gov looking to regulate social mediahttps://t.co/T1ZAS1uTQi pic.twitter.com/9RjOUADOB0

— Tamara Ugolini 🇨🇦 (@TamaraUgo) June 24, 2022

During the pandemic, PHAC utilized its behavioural insights team(s) and World Health Organization initiatives to deploy these psychological operations. There was no public debate, no parliamentary oversight, no meaningful consent, and no post-hoc accountability for the societal damage left in the wake.

Go Ad Free

Now, under the banner of “experiential” engagement, those same institutions are expanding their footprint. Performance metrics embedded in the tender signal that engagement, response, and behavioural change will once again be tracked and analyzed to optimize future campaigns.

Despite assurances that all initiatives will comply with federal standards for privacy, accessibility, bilingualism, and inclusivity, history shows that these protections aren’t always upheld. After all, these are the same agencies that oversaw controversial digital tools such as ArriveCAN, and which struggled to maintain basic pandemic preparedness, including adequate PPE stockpiles, but rewarded themselves with commemorative coins, nonetheless.

How is it that institutions that failed miserably at core public health logistics are now positioning themselves as architects of national behaviour modification?

During the height of the pandemic, Ottawa spent hundreds of millions on COVID-related communications and media placements. Those campaigns coincided with widespread social division, economic harm, and long-term public distrust —none of which have been meaningfully addressed since.

Instead, it seems that the government of Canada is full steam ahead, entering the next phase of public health planning, with campaigns less about empowering informed choice, but rather refining tools of influence and compliance.

Canadians would be justified in asking why behavioural experimentation continues to be funded without transparent oversight, democratic consent, or clear limits. Absent public scrutiny, surely this architecture will only expand —quietly, professionally, and at considerable public expense.